I thank the Minister for that response. I note that Clause 6(1)(e) states that regulations may be made about, ""how net household income is to be equivalised"."
In practice, it leaves it free for the Government of the day, whoever they may be, to optimise the equivalence scale in the way they want. At one level, my amendment was probing in order to raise the importance of this issue. Interestingly, Professor Bradshaw in his conclusion said that the unmodified OECD scale is a rather better fit to minimum income standards than the modified one. As I read his conclusion, it was a fairly arbitrary change. The core point I wished to make was that choosing an equivalent scale for the convenience of making comparisons does not mean that we have to be tied to that scale when we are setting statutory targets that really matter for child poverty. I think that the Bill as it stands would allow that to happen but, before I withdraw the amendment, I ask the Minister to confirm that my understanding is correct.
Child Poverty Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Freud
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 21 January 2010.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Child Poverty Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
716 c210GC 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 02:16:36 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_613191
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_613191
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_613191